This was done specially for the search and is not even part of actual google maps/google earth - just special overlay donated by google and the satellite company. Pays to be rich, famous and well liked.
This plane's coordinates was already posted on slashdot and the information was forwarded to Amazon people. (see here)
But from the fact that it is over the trees and yet in one piece, this plane is most likely in the air, probably part of the search party. Although I am surprised we have not found more of search planes
This one looks to be about 22' on the ground - was the first one i came to, but wasn't signed in and couldn't figure out how to get the specific location again.. most unclear and pretty random sort of search.. but i guess volume is good. Although more blurry, same object seems to exist on the old maps.
When in Google Earth, it's easy to shut off the new sat images and check. The old sat images aren't very clear at all, so sometimes it's hard to tell. Unfortunately the old and new maps are not aligned and I could not find an easy way to fix this. That said, I was thinking of a computer image procecssing way to compare the maps to see what has changed between. But probably different satelights and time of day/shadows would mess that up
That said, what about this object... a wing? It doesn't seem to be there in the old sat images.
3817'31.59"N 11920'12.93"W
I've been searching for hours and other than the best things other people have posted, that's the most interesting that I've seen. Its something but it seems to be about 80' long according to the ruler tool. Alaso I think it is there on the old map, if you account for the shift in maps. (according to my measurement old maps are 340 feet NE of new ones)
Strange marking/streak at 38 2'25.47"N 119 22'16.26"W
It looks like a streak on the mountain - possibly caused by something hitting it, especially viewed with 3d terrain on as it appears to go along the mountain and not down it. hate to be a pessimist but... It appears to be on the old maps as well though, switch off the new map and g up a bit (old maps don't seem to line up with new)
Note that the old maps are offset around 640feet to the North, compared to the new maps. Lakes and peaks show that pretty conclusively.
All that said, I've found several plane-shaped bright images (of roughly the right size) that were not in the old map data, but where do I alert someone to the coordinates? This was not done through the Amazon thingie, but directly in Google Earth... If you figure it out (and maybe how to un-offset maps) post here. If I find something close to the area turk says, I just put it in comments, but that is certainly not the best solution.
Meanwhile, there is something at 38 2'13.93"N, 11920'41.43"W - not very clear but seems to fit the dimensions perfectly.
I hate to rain on this parade, it would be nice if we could help, but the imagery on such sites isn't updated in real time. I'm not sure about Google earth, but Google maps uses satellite images that are several years old. Unless by some chance a new image was taken since Monday and already sent to whichever system they are using, the best that we might be able to do is identify some of the older wrecks that they are finding during this search. You are missing the part where GeoEye re-scanned the area since Monday for this specific search, which is why it is B&W instead of color as other images around the area are.
What I wonder though is how hard would it be to do some image processing and find the differences between images before and after monday - would not be perfect but may really cut down on amount of searching
What version of FF do you have? FF used to have horrible mem problems for me, but FF 2 has fixed much of that. I have 2.0.6 and have 24 tabs open at 167 MB. Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6
Do you reboot every day? Usually after restart the memory footprint is reasonable, but as I start to actually use it, it swells up, to the point that I have to kill it every few days or so just to reclaim the memory.
You really don't need to flame to make your points.
2 GB: I have the same software running across all the machines I manage--some of them are 500 Mhz, 256 Mb, Win 98 machines--and I use them on a regular basis without trouble. They perform well. You must have a funny definition of performing well, or else not using the machines for more than 5 minutes and let your users suffer. You just said your apps take up over a gig of RAM - so how exactly are they performing well on a Win98/256MB/500Mhz box?
VI: Please suggest some windows alternatives to oo. I use linux strictly for servers. Off top of my head AbiWord. But this discussion was about bloat free software. Just because you cant find an alternative or you can live with the bloat, does not mean its not bloated
Hardcore geeks: No, actually I don't know that. If you would point me to benchmarks to show my ignorance, I would be grateful. Alternatively, as the remark above indicates, suggest some alternatives to the software I listed that I can test for myself. Again, whether or not it has an alternative has nothing to do with it being bloated or not.
I realized that I haven't had much experience with some of the software that was being presented as being Slashdot-Certified Bloat-Free(TM), so I downloaded one of the suggestions--Opera--and compared it to Firefox. Firefox took only 16% more ram even though it was loaded down with add-ons. Needless to say it didn't inspire confidence in all the claims that are being bandied about. What exactly is "Slashdot-Certified Bloat-Free" and where did you pull that out of? Personally I have no opinion on Opera being more or less efficient, I don't use it, but following your numbers - 16% of 500MB (What my firefox is eating right now on 2 windows with 11 tabs combined) - is 80MB - which is as almost as much as most of my other applications (not counting Eclipse, T-bird, windows and FF) are using combined (and yes, I do run a lot of other apps). The real problem with Fifefox is not its initial footprint, its that unchecked it grows to unreasonable proportions. There is no reason to use half a gig of RAM for 11 pages with not more than 100k each (including all the images etc).
I would be open to suggestions of other software with similar features to the ones I listed that are less bloated. I would be delighted to find more efficient alternatives. Again not the point. The question was about non-bloat out there and not about what bloated software we like or what does or does not have alternatives. And while you may not find using up over a gig of RAM on word processing and web browsing alarming, many of us consider it bloat and would prefer to leave the RAM for applications that actually have reasonable need of it (Audio and video editing, CAD, modeling apps, etc)
The problem is that people keep equating "bloat" with "memory usage", when in reality "bloat" means (or at least should mean) "unnecessary memory usage".
I don't expect an application to be small. I just expect it to be as small as possible while still being as effective as possible.
Sometimes, it takes a lot of hard drive space and RAM to do all the things an application must do. Really, this shouldn't be an issue in an age where you can get a TB hard drive for under $200. But an application that's loaded with unnecessary, marketing-driven features and consumes more hard drive space and RAM than it should is a truly "bloated" application.
While I agree with your statement in principle, my firefox currently using 400+ MB of RAM while opening 7 tabs with HTML pages (no streaming of any kind) - and that's just ain't right.
Hate to say it but half of that list belongs on the "over-bloated" side. I mean OO??, Firefox??, Thunderbird?? Google Dekstop??? - have you actually used any of those?
I use most of them daily and as much as I love them, calling them anything short of "bloated memory hogs" is flat out lying.
And the companies that try Linux (Tivo, Cisco) are treated as the enemy by GPLv3.
First of all, what's Cisco's problem with the GPLv3? Second of all, what TiVo did was always wrong. The GPLv3 only gives legal weight to the ethos that existed all along.
I was under impression linksys products required a hack via insecure web form to get into the os to replace it, but apparently thats no longer the case.
Yep thats pretty much explains why BSD is the product of choice over Linux in many of the above cases. While there is some truth in that, the GPL is also the reason why so many companies contribute to Linux and not to BSD. I think you are 100% right. I have never been against GPL - think it is a powerful tool. I just think v3 has gone a bit too far and I hate being lied to and having my freedoms eroded under the promise of "greater freedom". We get enough of that from the government.
Tivo: perhaps not, if they think locking users out is so important to them. But I respect Linus opinion that they should be allowed to do so. But I certainly do not want to support them with my code. Tivo has always walked the line on this one. Early on while they officially said they frown on hacking, tivo employees were frequently on forums discussing hacking of tivos. There was little encryption.
As time went on and they found themselves needing support from the content creation and distribution industry and to survive in the business they have to promise that they are not enabling copyright infringement via their device and while anyone can run anything on their hardware they simply cannot do that. This came to a head in DirectTV deal where they were forced to add encryption to the boot process. Mind you this was a feeble attempt at quashing fears in the industry but without it and DTV deal, tivo would have been out of business long ago. Even today, on the latest and greatest of tivo devices you still have ability to run whatever you want. They don't make it easy, but it is not impossible either.
Personally, with all this talk about this being good for the users, as a user I would rather have non-hackable tivo than no tivo at all.
Linksys: sure, they were a good member of the free software community with their home routers. Nothing they did would be in conflict with the GPLv3. So why not?
Last I checked (and this could be wrong like my F5 info) You still had to do some exploit to get a linksys router to load and run custom code, they do not ship easy instructions or root passwords or anything to get into it, which is against the GPLv3 just like Tivo.
so how is that an advantage for the free software community? How about here?
As for advantage for the free software community a.k.a. developers, I thought this was about USERS and not about DEVELOPERS (free software or otherwise) and And users seem to prefer OS/X to Linux 8 to 1. You want to explain to an average os/x user why it not to their advantage to use it? I think having OS/X is a bigger advantage to users than limiting their choice.
Sorry, but I have to correct you. F5 BigIP now runs, and has for quite a while now, RHEL 3. That's GNU/Linux for the avoidance of any doubt - not BSD. Really?? Guess its been a while since I used latest F5 gear. Last I used it it was BSD. Sorry, I stand corrected.
The GPL is going to be "radioactive" to a lot of companies. Hell, even the main BSD guys consider it malignant. Developers that want to see their code adopted and used by the mainstream, whether they are in it for profit or not, might want to avoid GPL, especially if their software has runs on specialized or proprietary hardware. GPL creates what in essence is a walled garden. If you GPL your code, you're putting it into that garden. It might be a very beautiful garden, but your code will never get out.*
*Assuming others are contributing to it. If you're the sole copyright holder for your project, you can always do whatever the hell you want. Yep thats pretty much explains why BSD is the product of choice over Linux in many of the above cases. 15 years later BSD made it into mainstream products from large manufacturers (F5, OS/X and iPhone, etc) And the companies that try Linux (Tivo, Cisco) are treated as the enemy by GPLv3. Has GPL been like GPLv3 from the get go, would Tivo or Linksys ever consider using Linux or would those be BSD products?
I don't agree that it's your hardware (unless you are leasing it to somebody).
If I buy your device with money the hardware is mine. The design may not be, but the physical item and all of it's molecules are my property to do with as I wish. Ok, in that case you must agree that its not their software, its mine - design may not be but the physical bits are mine and all its molecules are my property to do with as I wish. And if I wish to sell those bits to another, I should have the right to - after all I can do as I wish right?
See, it does not work that way. If you design something, you CAN dictate how its used via license, otherwise GPL is completely pointless and unenforceable.
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her. The other three are not really relevant as they stay just as true in v3 as v2, but this one is no longer fully intact in v3.
With GPLv3 can no longer run the software on some systems for some purposes. As a developer of proprietary embedded system (and a user AND NOT DEVELOPER of software in question) I no longer have the freedom (freedom 0) to use the software in question (unmodified) on my product because the developer of the software IMPOSED THEIR PURPOSE on me via GPLv3 in form that I must subscribe to their philosophy and must make my device with same purpose as their software.
The end user of my device has access to the software. They can see source and use it for whatever their purpose they want. I am not restricting how the software is used. I should be within my right however restrict how my hardware is used. Its mine, it has nothing to do with this software and I should be allowed to make it with any purpose I want, but if I exercise my freedom (freedom 0) to use v3 software, a purpose is imposed on me that means I must alter *MY* product to comply with developer's philosophy just because I chose to use "free" software with this license.
Again, I am not saying people don't have the right to use it, I just object to someone pissing in a cup and calling it lemonade. Transition from GPLv2 to GPLv3 seems to me less freedom not more.
You just cannot put your modified software back onto their box [...]
If you paid for it, it's not their fucking box anymore! Ok, I'll bite, following that logic if I buy a CD with Samba on it, I can do anything I want with it, ignoring GPL, because hell, if I paid for it, it's not their fucking software anymore!
I don't think so, ownership frequently comes with licensing, copyrights, etc. be that GPL software or anything else. Why should GPL be respected if you don't respect any other license agreement??
No. The GPL is about and has always been about freedom for the end user. Tivoization removes freedom from the end users against the spirit of the GPLv2. GPLv3 closes that loophole and restores the freedom.
Yeah, but that is the problem,isn't it? Who IS the "end user"? If you install something for your computer illiterate friend are you the "end user" or is your friend? And if you do so and you are not the "end user", are you REQUIRED to provide your friend with written documentation with all passwords on how to upgrade it? What about if you are a contractor hired to set up a big complex system for someone's home? And should the kids be given written instructions to circumvent a parental control system? Are they the "end users" or are the parents? And if you set up a web server in your house using GPLv3 software should you be posting your root password everywhere, after all the "end users" must have the right to change the software?
I think the vendors view themselves as users and in a lot of cases the line between the two is blurry. Tivo, for example, I think changed it so that you no longer OWN your device - so since you don't OWN the device, GPLv3 does not apply to you does it? Is that really the desired effect of the GPL to prevent us from actually owning the devices we use?
I understand the idea behind v3, and I even think it is the right idea, but I don't think it belongs in something like a GPL license. Can you really force your moral stance on other people via software license? What if the license said that "only white people can distribute this software"? Or "only christians"? Or "you can only run this software on Dell computers"? Once you start down this path where does it lead?
You were the one making the claim that "at least one embedded Linux platform that is feverishly planning to switch from Linux to Windows because of the Samba's decision to adopt v3." If you make such a claim, then you need to cite your sources. That's all the grandparent poster was asking for. If there are no sources, then it is, by definition, FUD. If it's a verifiable fact, then it's an important one to take into consideration in the v2 vs v3 debate. This is not exactly the New York Times where we must provide our sources, but even NYT reporters occasionally do not reveal their sources because of various concerns. Of course I am far from NYT in terms of credibility, so if that the level of credibility you expect, I probably should not have said that. Actually given the confidential nature of this whole thing, I probably should not have said anything anyway. So, I take it back. Nothing is happening, these are not the droids you are looking for...
Still, I would argue that it is far from FUD. Read my comment in the post above. Just because you are not willing to listen to someone's concern or disagree with it does not make it FUD. There is nothing misrepresented here - the clause in question is specifically designed to prevent usage of software in these situations. *IT FLAT OUT SAYS SO*. It is not designed to provoke fear, uncertainty or doubt - it just states the fact that v3 terms now restrict what certain product manufacturers can do with affected software and that they need to find a way to comply with the license or switch products they use.
If you do not like the GPLv3, chances are you never liked the GPLv2 either. The GPLv3 is not a revolution of the GPL concept, it is just exactly the same ideas adapted to a world where it has become possible to circumvent version 2 by methods unforeseen when it was written. If you are alright with people taking your code and not contributing back, by all means use BSD instead.
I propose that it is NOT exactly the same ideas as v2 - the key point of v2 is granting the freedom to use the software and modify it as you see fit as long as any changes to software are distributed. This freedom is now abridged in v3 because you no longer can use the code in any place you want, modified or otherwise, with changes distributed or not. It is no longer about taking code and not contributing, it is about who can and cannot use the code at all. The license now dictates how the hardware and software around this product must be designed in order to use the software - something never envisioned or supported in v2. In fact I would go to say that this pretty much same thing as DRM - much like the so called "Trusted Computing Platform" which also restricts where and how you can use the software/hardware.
Now I would never say that GPLv3 should not exist or that people should not use it, just that it, much like other DRM, seems to me a bit morally shady and at odds with concept of "Freedom".
Don't know why I am answering an anonymous troll but...
Name your full name, your mothers maiden name, your bank accounts and PINs or YOU don't exist.
Besides, while my statement was a bit pessimistic view of things it is far from FUD. FUD is NOT something said that you don't like, its Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
There is no fear or uncertainty or doubt about this - the clause in question is designed specifically to prevent companies like these from using GPLv3 software in their products. For fuck's sake, its in the NAME of the clause. Linux itself is not affected for now but anything that relies on Samba is - so if someone wants to continue using newer version of Samba in their product AND retain control over over their product - they either have to fork it from GPLv2 version or switch to something different, and the simplest thing out there for a small guy is to switch to Windows. Its a bit more pricey but they retain a lot more control that they want.
Now, personally I think that locking down your product is not a great thing by any means, hell, I add all sorts of stuff to my Tivos and have several re-purposed Linux Linksys boxes. But taking the right of choice away from people is wrong too. I also have been sole developer for products going out to large clients where "you can figure out how you broke it and fix it yourself" just does not cut it. I have to control the environment precisely and if some idiot on client site decides to play around with it and break it, I do not have the resources to support it and keep fixing it. (And don't think this does not happen by accident or on purpose)
Slashdot Mirror
This was done specially for the search and is not even part of actual google maps/google earth - just special overlay donated by google and the satellite company. Pays to be rich, famous and well liked.
That actually looks good. It is clearly a plane and it looks like it might be on the ground
This plane's coordinates was already posted on slashdot and the information was forwarded to Amazon people. (see here)
But from the fact that it is over the trees and yet in one piece, this plane is most likely in the air, probably part of the search party. Although I am surprised we have not found more of search planes
-Em
11920'33.19"W
This one looks to be about 22' on the ground - was the first one i came to, but wasn't signed in and couldn't figure out how to get the specific location again
-Em
3817'31.59"N 11920'12.93"W
I've been searching for hours and other than the best things other people have posted, that's the most interesting that I've seen. Its something but it seems to be about 80' long according to the ruler tool. Alaso I think it is there on the old map, if you account for the shift in maps. (according to my measurement old maps are 340 feet NE of new ones)
38 2'25.47"N
119 22'16.26"W
It looks like a streak on the mountain - possibly caused by something hitting it, especially viewed with 3d terrain on as it appears to go along the mountain and not down it.
hate to be a pessimist but... It appears to be on the old maps as well though, switch off the new map and g up a bit (old maps don't seem to line up with new)
-Em
All that said, I've found several plane-shaped bright images (of roughly the right size) that were not in the old map data, but where do I alert someone to the coordinates? This was not done through the Amazon thingie, but directly in Google Earth... If you figure it out (and maybe how to un-offset maps) post here. If I find something close to the area turk says, I just put it in comments, but that is certainly not the best solution.
Meanwhile, there is something at 38 2'13.93"N, 11920'41.43"W - not very clear but seems to fit the dimensions perfectly.
-Em
Way to large - looks like its about 40' across and few hundred feet long. Submit it to be reviewed though - never know.
What I wonder though is how hard would it be to do some image processing and find the differences between images before and after monday - would not be perfect but may really cut down on amount of searching
-Em
Do you reboot every day? Usually after restart the memory footprint is reasonable, but as I start to actually use it, it swells up, to the point that I have to kill it every few days or so just to reclaim the memory.
2 GB: I have the same software running across all the machines I manage--some of them are 500 Mhz, 256 Mb, Win 98 machines--and I use them on a regular basis without trouble. They perform well. You must have a funny definition of performing well, or else not using the machines for more than 5 minutes and let your users suffer. You just said your apps take up over a gig of RAM - so how exactly are they performing well on a Win98/256MB/500Mhz box? VI: Please suggest some windows alternatives to oo. I use linux strictly for servers. Off top of my head AbiWord. But this discussion was about bloat free software. Just because you cant find an alternative or you can live with the bloat, does not mean its not bloated Hardcore geeks: No, actually I don't know that. If you would point me to benchmarks to show my ignorance, I would be grateful. Alternatively, as the remark above indicates, suggest some alternatives to the software I listed that I can test for myself. Again, whether or not it has an alternative has nothing to do with it being bloated or not. I realized that I haven't had much experience with some of the software that was being presented as being Slashdot-Certified Bloat-Free(TM), so I downloaded one of the suggestions--Opera--and compared it to Firefox. Firefox took only 16% more ram even though it was loaded down with add-ons. Needless to say it didn't inspire confidence in all the claims that are being bandied about. What exactly is "Slashdot-Certified Bloat-Free" and where did you pull that out of? Personally I have no opinion on Opera being more or less efficient, I don't use it, but following your numbers - 16% of 500MB (What my firefox is eating right now on 2 windows with 11 tabs combined) - is 80MB - which is as almost as much as most of my other applications (not counting Eclipse, T-bird, windows and FF) are using combined (and yes, I do run a lot of other apps). The real problem with Fifefox is not its initial footprint, its that unchecked it grows to unreasonable proportions. There is no reason to use half a gig of RAM for 11 pages with not more than 100k each (including all the images etc). I would be open to suggestions of other software with similar features to the ones I listed that are less bloated. I would be delighted to find more efficient alternatives. Again not the point. The question was about non-bloat out there and not about what bloated software we like or what does or does not have alternatives. And while you may not find using up over a gig of RAM on word processing and web browsing alarming, many of us consider it bloat and would prefer to leave the RAM for applications that actually have reasonable need of it (Audio and video editing, CAD, modeling apps, etc)
-Em
The problem is that people keep equating "bloat" with "memory usage", when in reality "bloat" means (or at least should mean) "unnecessary memory usage".
I don't expect an application to be small. I just expect it to be as small as possible while still being as effective as possible.
Sometimes, it takes a lot of hard drive space and RAM to do all the things an application must do. Really, this shouldn't be an issue in an age where you can get a TB hard drive for under $200. But an application that's loaded with unnecessary, marketing-driven features and consumes more hard drive space and RAM than it should is a truly "bloated" application.
While I agree with your statement in principle, my firefox currently using 400+ MB of RAM while opening 7 tabs with HTML pages (no streaming of any kind) - and that's just ain't right.-Em
Hate to say it but half of that list belongs on the "over-bloated" side. I mean OO??, Firefox??, Thunderbird?? Google Dekstop??? - have you actually used any of those?
I use most of them daily and as much as I love them, calling them anything short of "bloated memory hogs" is flat out lying.
First of all, what's Cisco's problem with the GPLv3? Second of all, what TiVo did was always wrong. The GPLv3 only gives legal weight to the ethos that existed all along.
I was under impression linksys products required a hack via insecure web form to get into the os to replace it, but apparently thats no longer the case.So, what did Tivo do that was ALWAYS wrong?
-Em
As time went on and they found themselves needing support from the content creation and distribution industry and to survive in the business they have to promise that they are not enabling copyright infringement via their device and while anyone can run anything on their hardware they simply cannot do that. This came to a head in DirectTV deal where they were forced to add encryption to the boot process. Mind you this was a feeble attempt at quashing fears in the industry but without it and DTV deal, tivo would have been out of business long ago. Even today, on the latest and greatest of tivo devices you still have ability to run whatever you want. They don't make it easy, but it is not impossible either.
Personally, with all this talk about this being good for the users, as a user I would rather have non-hackable tivo than no tivo at all.
Linksys: sure, they were a good member of the free software community with their home routers. Nothing they did would be in conflict with the GPLv3. So why not?
Last I checked (and this could be wrong like my F5 info) You still had to do some exploit to get a linksys router to load and run custom code, they do not ship easy instructions or root passwords or anything to get into it, which is against the GPLv3 just like Tivo.-Em
Oh, they made it non-free
so how is that an advantage for the free software community? How about here?
As for advantage for the free software community a.k.a. developers, I thought this was about USERS and not about DEVELOPERS (free software or otherwise) and And users seem to prefer OS/X to Linux 8 to 1. You want to explain to an average os/x user why it not to their advantage to use it? I think having OS/X is a bigger advantage to users than limiting their choice.
-Em
-Em
*Assuming others are contributing to it. If you're the sole copyright holder for your project, you can always do whatever the hell you want. Yep thats pretty much explains why BSD is the product of choice over Linux in many of the above cases. 15 years later BSD made it into mainstream products from large manufacturers (F5, OS/X and iPhone, etc) And the companies that try Linux (Tivo, Cisco) are treated as the enemy by GPLv3. Has GPL been like GPLv3 from the get go, would Tivo or Linksys ever consider using Linux or would those be BSD products?
-Em
If I buy your device with money the hardware is mine. The design may not be, but the physical item and all of it's molecules are my property to do with as I wish. Ok, in that case you must agree that its not their software, its mine - design may not be but the physical bits are mine and all its molecules are my property to do with as I wish. And if I wish to sell those bits to another, I should have the right to - after all I can do as I wish right?
See, it does not work that way. If you design something, you CAN dictate how its used via license, otherwise GPL is completely pointless and unenforceable.
-Em
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her. The other three are not really relevant as they stay just as true in v3 as v2, but this one is no longer fully intact in v3.
With GPLv3 can no longer run the software on some systems for some purposes. As a developer of proprietary embedded system (and a user AND NOT DEVELOPER of software in question) I no longer have the freedom (freedom 0) to use the software in question (unmodified) on my product because the developer of the software IMPOSED THEIR PURPOSE on me via GPLv3 in form that I must subscribe to their philosophy and must make my device with same purpose as their software.
The end user of my device has access to the software. They can see source and use it for whatever their purpose they want. I am not restricting how the software is used. I should be within my right however restrict how my hardware is used. Its mine, it has nothing to do with this software and I should be allowed to make it with any purpose I want, but if I exercise my freedom (freedom 0) to use v3 software, a purpose is imposed on me that means I must alter *MY* product to comply with developer's philosophy just because I chose to use "free" software with this license.
Again, I am not saying people don't have the right to use it, I just object to someone pissing in a cup and calling it lemonade. Transition from GPLv2 to GPLv3 seems to me less freedom not more.
-Em
I don't think so, ownership frequently comes with licensing, copyrights, etc. be that GPL software or anything else. Why should GPL be respected if you don't respect any other license agreement??
-Em
No. The GPL is about and has always been about freedom for the end user. Tivoization removes freedom from the end users against the spirit of the GPLv2. GPLv3 closes that loophole and restores the freedom.
Yeah, but that is the problem,isn't it? Who IS the "end user"? If you install something for your computer illiterate friend are you the "end user" or is your friend? And if you do so and you are not the "end user", are you REQUIRED to provide your friend with written documentation with all passwords on how to upgrade it? What about if you are a contractor hired to set up a big complex system for someone's home? And should the kids be given written instructions to circumvent a parental control system? Are they the "end users" or are the parents? And if you set up a web server in your house using GPLv3 software should you be posting your root password everywhere, after all the "end users" must have the right to change the software?I think the vendors view themselves as users and in a lot of cases the line between the two is blurry. Tivo, for example, I think changed it so that you no longer OWN your device - so since you don't OWN the device, GPLv3 does not apply to you does it? Is that really the desired effect of the GPL to prevent us from actually owning the devices we use?
I understand the idea behind v3, and I even think it is the right idea, but I don't think it belongs in something like a GPL license. Can you really force your moral stance on other people via software license? What if the license said that "only white people can distribute this software"? Or "only christians"? Or "you can only run this software on Dell computers"? Once you start down this path where does it lead?
-Em
Still, I would argue that it is far from FUD. Read my comment in the post above. Just because you are not willing to listen to someone's concern or disagree with it does not make it FUD. There is nothing misrepresented here - the clause in question is specifically designed to prevent usage of software in these situations. *IT FLAT OUT SAYS SO*. It is not designed to provoke fear, uncertainty or doubt - it just states the fact that v3 terms now restrict what certain product manufacturers can do with affected software and that they need to find a way to comply with the license or switch products they use.
-Em
If you do not like the GPLv3, chances are you never liked the GPLv2 either. The GPLv3 is not a revolution of the GPL concept, it is just exactly the same ideas adapted to a world where it has become possible to circumvent version 2 by methods unforeseen when it was written. If you are alright with people taking your code and not contributing back, by all means use BSD instead.
I propose that it is NOT exactly the same ideas as v2 - the key point of v2 is granting the freedom to use the software and modify it as you see fit as long as any changes to software are distributed. This freedom is now abridged in v3 because you no longer can use the code in any place you want, modified or otherwise, with changes distributed or not. It is no longer about taking code and not contributing, it is about who can and cannot use the code at all. The license now dictates how the hardware and software around this product must be designed in order to use the software - something never envisioned or supported in v2. In fact I would go to say that this pretty much same thing as DRM - much like the so called "Trusted Computing Platform" which also restricts where and how you can use the software/hardware.Now I would never say that GPLv3 should not exist or that people should not use it, just that it, much like other DRM, seems to me a bit morally shady and at odds with concept of "Freedom".
-Em
Don't know why I am answering an anonymous troll but...Name or it doesn't exist.
Name your full name, your mothers maiden name, your bank accounts and PINs or YOU don't exist.
Besides, while my statement was a bit pessimistic view of things it is far from FUD. FUD is NOT something said that you don't like, its Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
There is no fear or uncertainty or doubt about this - the clause in question is designed specifically to prevent companies like these from using GPLv3 software in their products. For fuck's sake, its in the NAME of the clause. Linux itself is not affected for now but anything that relies on Samba is - so if someone wants to continue using newer version of Samba in their product AND retain control over over their product - they either have to fork it from GPLv2 version or switch to something different, and the simplest thing out there for a small guy is to switch to Windows. Its a bit more pricey but they retain a lot more control that they want.
Now, personally I think that locking down your product is not a great thing by any means, hell, I add all sorts of stuff to my Tivos and have several re-purposed Linux Linksys boxes. But taking the right of choice away from people is wrong too. I also have been sole developer for products going out to large clients where "you can figure out how you broke it and fix it yourself" just does not cut it. I have to control the environment precisely and if some idiot on client site decides to play around with it and break it, I do not have the resources to support it and keep fixing it. (And don't think this does not happen by accident or on purpose)
-Em